When gun rights activists talk about "abolishing gun-free zones," they're almost always talking about allowing for the presence of armed guards. Nobody -- neither the NRA, nor Trump, nor any (sane) Republican -- has ever thought it's a good idea to mix guns with alcohol or teenagers. Your inability to comprehend what they're saying doesn't indicate inconsistency/lunacy on their part. It only indicates your inability to comprehend what they're saying. Please learn to read before engaging in further political discourse.

At 6/20/2016 5:45:42 PM, Romanii wrote:When gun rights activists talk about "abolishing gun-free zones," they're almost always talking about allowing for the presence of armed guards. Nobody -- neither the NRA, nor Trump, nor any (sane) Republican -- has ever thought it's a good idea to mix guns with alcohol or teenagers. Your inability to comprehend what they're saying doesn't indicate inconsistency/lunacy on their part. It only indicates your inability to comprehend what they're saying. Please learn to read before engaging in further political discourse.

Really? Is that it? No problem. I will go through the threads later. I don't think there was any doubt that arming the club-goers was exactly what the users were talking about - and Trump!

At 6/20/2016 5:45:42 PM, Romanii wrote:When gun rights activists talk about "abolishing gun-free zones," they're almost always talking about allowing for the presence of armed guards. Nobody -- neither the NRA, nor Trump, nor any (sane) Republican -- has ever thought it's a good idea to mix guns with alcohol or teenagers. Your inability to comprehend what they're saying doesn't indicate inconsistency/lunacy on their part. It only indicates your inability to comprehend what they're saying. Please learn to read before engaging in further political discourse.

Bu the way - the "gun free zone" sh1t is clearly not talking about "extra security" as in this case there WAS armed security and the discussion WAS about more armed civilians.

You. YOU learn to read. YOU defend this crap when its clear not even the NRA can defend the nonsense.

At 6/20/2016 5:54:53 PM, TBR wrote:Bu the way - the "gun free zone" sh1t is clearly not talking about "extra security" as in this case there WAS armed security and the discussion WAS about more armed civilians.

Actually, the discussion was primarily about radical Islam. Democrats were the ones who brought up guns, and given the sort of bullsh!t they were spewing, I wouldn't be surprised if it elicited some (justifiably) angry & irrational responses by gun-supporters.

At 6/20/2016 5:45:42 PM, Romanii wrote:When gun rights activists talk about "abolishing gun-free zones," they're almost always talking about allowing for the presence of armed guards. Nobody -- neither the NRA, nor Trump, nor any (sane) Republican -- has ever thought it's a good idea to mix guns with alcohol or teenagers. Your inability to comprehend what they're saying doesn't indicate inconsistency/lunacy on their part. It only indicates your inability to comprehend what they're saying. Please learn to read before engaging in further political discourse.

FaustianJusticehttp://www.debate.org..."Target selection is the priority, not the weapon. Mass shooters assume the logical choice is to go where the people are not armed."

FaustianJusticehttp://www.debate.org...They weren't allowed to carry there. FL's rules about concealed carry (among other places) prevent you from carrying a gun into a bar such as this.

You will notice such law abiding citizens were then put at the mercy of those whom would then not abide by the law, which is the problem with gun control in the first place, you are sacraficing the ability of millions that can legally defend themselves in favor of those whom never intended to respect the law in the first place.

Vox_Veritashttp://www.debate.org...Indeed; they did nothing, because there were no good guys with guns present.(direct reference to PATRONS having guns)

Vox_Veritashttp://www.debate.org...If several of the gay dudes there had guns, the death toll would probably be a quarter or half of what it is now.

"Democrats were the ones who brought up guns, and given the sort of bullsh!t they were spewing, I wouldn't be surprised if it elicited some (justifiably) angry & irrational responses by gun-supporters."

Most, if not all, of those posts were just responses to calls for gun control.

And you still haven't showed where Trump himself advocated letting students and club-goers carry guns.

"Democrats were the ones who brought up guns, and given the sort of bullsh!t they were spewing, I wouldn't be surprised if it elicited some (justifiably) angry & irrational responses by gun-supporters."

Most, if not all, of those posts were just responses to calls for gun control.

And you still haven't showed where Trump himself advocated letting students and club-goers carry guns.

Move the goal all you like. I am asking these users if they stand by it, now that both Trump and the NRA have called their reaction "nuts".

At 6/20/2016 6:30:20 PM, TBR wrote:Move the goal all you like. I am asking these users if they stand by it, now that both Trump and the NRA have called their reaction "nuts".

Fine. But the fact remains that the premise of this thread is inaccurate, since Trump never proposed anything of the sort.

It would seem you have not been able to read or understand the thread at all, and have thrown rocks at the wrong target. OK. Now that YOU are in it, are YOU saying that there should be "gun free zones" in places like this bar? Are YOU saying that the only point of contention is (giggle) more armed security? When we were talking about the community college shootings, that was about more armed security, and not students? Is that right?

At 6/20/2016 6:43:54 PM, TBR wrote:It would seem you have not been able to read or understand the thread at all, and have thrown rocks at the wrong target. OK. Now that YOU are in it, are YOU saying that there should be "gun free zones" in places like this bar? Are YOU saying that the only point of contention is (giggle) more armed security? When we were talking about the community college shootings, that was about more armed security, and not students? Is that right?

Wtf are you talking about? This is incoherent. You're seriously illiterate.

I'll try outlining my stance (and the stance of most Trump-supporters) one last time:

I support armed security at clubs/bars and at schools/universities. I don't support arming club-goers or students themselves. With this particular shooting, the issue at hand is what to do about radical Islam -- no gun control measure could have stopped it.

At 6/20/2016 6:49:36 PM, TBR wrote:Trump: If Orlando Clubgoers Had Guns And Shot That "Son Of A Bitch" It Would Have Been "A Beautiful Sight"

So... Pack it in kid. You have lost every round.

In what world does that sound even vaguely like a policy proposal to you?

I happen to agree with that sentiment. I would have been a beautiful sight. And yet I don't support arming club-goers.

You are trying so hard to obfuscate, just like Trump. Fine, the guy wants to back off his poorly thought out remarks, OK. Weak, but OK. Now, all the people who say it was just as they were thinking, what about them?

Please. The fact is simple. If this had gone another way, you would be telling me how bold Trump was for saying that the club goers should have Glocks in their jocks.

At 6/20/2016 7:21:14 PM, TBR wrote:Please. The fact is simple. If this had gone another way, you would be telling me how bold Trump was for saying that the club goers should have Glocks in their jocks.

No, I wouldn't, because that's an objectively dumb policy... which is why no sane person has seriously proposed it.

At 6/20/2016 7:21:14 PM, TBR wrote:Please. The fact is simple. If this had gone another way, you would be telling me how bold Trump was for saying that the club goers should have Glocks in their jocks.

No, I wouldn't, because that's an objectively dumb policy... which is why no sane person has seriously proposed it.

At 6/20/2016 7:21:14 PM, TBR wrote:Please. The fact is simple. If this had gone another way, you would be telling me how bold Trump was for saying that the club goers should have Glocks in their jocks.

No, I wouldn't, because that's an objectively dumb policy... which is why no sane person has seriously proposed it.

Trump, when asked (and told there was armed security) said this.

"If you had some guns in that club the night that this took place, if you had guns on the other side, you wouldn"t have had the tragedy that you had. If people in that room had guns with the bullets flying in the opposite direction right at him... right at his head, you wouldn"t have had the same tragedy that you ended up having,"

While a stretch, you COULD say he "misspoke" and meant private security, BUT it was followed with this.

"If you had guns in that room, if you had " even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist, where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn"t have had the same kind of a tragedy," Trump continued.

So.. If you so want to believe excuse Trump makes today, fine. There is no rational person would read that in ANY other way. Anyone but someone so vested in giving Trump a break when he says stupid sh1t.

At 6/20/2016 8:01:29 PM, TBR wrote:OK, so bballcrook21, Vox_Veritas, and others are not sane. Got it.

No, I'd give them benefit of the doubt. They could have just been expressing the same sentiment Trump did (or maybe just reacting to the bullsh!t spewed by Democrats like you) without intending for it to be a serious policy proposal.

"If you had some guns in that club the night that this took place, if you had guns on the other side, you wouldn"t have had the tragedy that you had. If people in that room had guns with the bullets flying in the opposite direction right at him... right at his head, you wouldn"t have had the same tragedy that you ended up having,"

"If you had guns in that room, if you had " even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist, where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn"t have had the same kind of a tragedy," Trump continued.

Neither of those quotes show that he's in favor of arming club-goers.... not even close. Yes, they're rather vague, but he made it clear with his statements afterwards that he only supports arming security guards and employees.

And btw, there was only one armed security guard at the club that night. Calling for more isn't unreasonable.

"If you had some guns in that club the night that this took place, if you had guns on the other side, you wouldn"t have had the tragedy that you had. If people in that room had guns with the bullets flying in the opposite direction right at him... right at his head, you wouldn"t have had the same tragedy that you ended up having,"

"If you had guns in that room, if you had " even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist, where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn"t have had the same kind of a tragedy," Trump continued.

Neither of those quotes show that he's in favor of arming club-goers.... not even close. Yes, they're rather vague, but he made it clear with his statements afterwards that he only supports arming security guards and employees.

So much dental. So much delusion. Good for you. Keep it up. About the only way to keep sane while supporting someone as vapid as Trump.

And btw, there was only one armed security guard at the club that night. Calling for more isn't unreasonable.

But, that is not what Trump was saying, and anyone who read Trumps words knows exactly what jacka$$ thing he was saying.

At 6/20/2016 9:15:55 PM, TBR wrote:So much dental. So much delusion. Good for you. Keep it up. About the only way to keep sane while supporting someone as vapid as Trump.

TBR, I don't care what you think of my political views. Our past few conversations have left me with zero respect for you as an intellectual. Your posts are borderline incomprehensible, your opinions are devoid of insight or nuance, and you tend to compensate for your lack of substance with pure bluster. Worst of all, the concept of epistemic humility is foreign to you -- in your fantasy world, anybody who isn't a stereotypical Democrat is a backwards moron, with views so stupid that you can't even be bothered to fully understand what they're saying. I'll do myself a favor and avoid interacting with you in the future. Would appreciate it if you did the same for me.

At 6/20/2016 7:21:14 PM, TBR wrote:Please. The fact is simple. If this had gone another way, you would be telling me how bold Trump was for saying that the club goers should have Glocks in their jocks.

No, I wouldn't, because that's an objectively dumb policy... which is why no sane person has seriously proposed it.

OK, so bballcrook21, Vox_Veritas, and others are not sane. Got it.

Vox veritas is a kid and bballcrook is a bit of an idealogue, one with extremely unusual beliefs outside of the mainstream. He refers to himself as a libertarian nationalist. I like him, but he is far from representative of conservative thought

At 6/20/2016 7:21:14 PM, TBR wrote:Please. The fact is simple. If this had gone another way, you would be telling me how bold Trump was for saying that the club goers should have Glocks in their jocks.

No, I wouldn't, because that's an objectively dumb policy... which is why no sane person has seriously proposed it.

OK, so bballcrook21, Vox_Veritas, and others are not sane. Got it.

Vox veritas is a kid and bballcrook is a bit of an idealogue, one with extremely unusual beliefs outside of the mainstream. He refers to himself as a libertarian nationalist. I like him, but he is far from representative of conservative thought

I think the gun grabbing fear is justified too, when you see what is going on in the house and senate. Republicans and Democrats are trying to let the FBI stop suspected terrorists from buying guns. The RepublicNs want it so the FBI can't just randomly stop people at will, or so they can investigate an unknown quantity without stopping their gun rights if their initial suspicions were no big deal, and Denocrats are blocking it because they want thw FBI to be able to stop purchase of guns anytime they feel like it or for any reason

At 6/20/2016 7:21:14 PM, TBR wrote:Please. The fact is simple. If this had gone another way, you would be telling me how bold Trump was for saying that the club goers should have Glocks in their jocks.

No, I wouldn't, because that's an objectively dumb policy... which is why no sane person has seriously proposed it.

OK, so bballcrook21, Vox_Veritas, and others are not sane. Got it.

Vox veritas is a kid and bballcrook is a bit of an idealogue, one with extremely unusual beliefs outside of the mainstream. He refers to himself as a libertarian nationalist. I like him, but he is far from representative of conservative thought

So, you agree. Gun-free zones in this case are good, right?

Maybe for court houses and othe goverment or community owned businesses. Airports might be better off gun free, but for the most part I oppose gun free zones. Obviously the security of that gay club would likely wand everybody so they all came in gun free anyway, so the gun free zones are mostly pointless.

In it's current state I don't feel one way or another . i think when conservatives say that gun free zones don't work, they generally don't care about them and most of the rime agree the specific gun free zones should remain. They are not having an intelligent conversation as much as they are just fighting to make sure they can mantain the right to bear arms. They fear the gun regulations are a slippery slope.

At 6/20/2016 7:21:14 PM, TBR wrote:Please. The fact is simple. If this had gone another way, you would be telling me how bold Trump was for saying that the club goers should have Glocks in their jocks.

No, I wouldn't, because that's an objectively dumb policy... which is why no sane person has seriously proposed it.

OK, so bballcrook21, Vox_Veritas, and others are not sane. Got it.

Vox veritas is a kid and bballcrook is a bit of an idealogue, one with extremely unusual beliefs outside of the mainstream. He refers to himself as a libertarian nationalist. I like him, but he is far from representative of conservative thought

So, you agree. Gun-free zones in this case are good, right?

Maybe for court houses and othe goverment or community owned businesses. Airports might be better off gun free, but for the most part I oppose gun free zones. Obviously the security of that gay club would likely wand everybody so they all came in gun free anyway, so the gun free zones are mostly pointless.

In it's current state I don't feel one way or another . i think when conservatives say that gun free zones don't work, they generally don't care about them and most of the rime agree the specific gun free zones should remain. They are not having an intelligent conversation as much as they are just fighting to make sure they can mantain the right to bear arms. They fear the gun regulations are a slippery slope.

That argument I have little issue with. I do contend that anyone reading Trumps remarks is right in thinking he speculated the patrons should have been armed. Further, many on this site (and others) said so very specifically. That was the point of the thread.

Gun supporters bluster about this topic often. I am not pushing for more gun control, but these conversations and arguments from gun supporters are absurd. You can't walk away from clear, and crazy statements just because it is uncomfortable now.